6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
7.  Following the entry into force of the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State's security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) the applicant, who was a member of the Sejm[1] at the time, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services.
8.  On 1 June 1999 the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to institute proceedings in the applicant's case on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying his cooperation with the secret services. On 14 June 1999 the applicant was notified that the lustration proceedings had been instituted.
9.  On 16 September and 25 October 1999 the court held hearings in camera.
10.  On 17 December 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had been a deliberate and secret collaborator with the Security Service (Slużba Bezpieczeństwa, “the SB”) and had therefore lied in his lustration declaration. The court relied, inter alia, on an expert opinion prepared by the Department of Criminology and Chemistry of the State Security Bureau (Zakład Kryminalistyki i Chemii Urzedu Ochrony Państwa) which had confirmed the authenticity of the applicant's signature on a document in his file. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant on 3 January 2000. However, the reasoning was considered “secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in the secret registry of that court.
11.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He argued that the SB must have registered him as a secret collaborator without his knowledge or consent. The applicant maintained that his contacts with the Civil Militia (Milicja Obywatelska) and an SB agent whom he had known personally had been purely private and had never taken the form of conscious collaboration. The applicant also requested to call more witnesses, in particular the friend on whom he had allegedly reported to the SB, and that an independent opinion be ordered from an expert who did not belong to an agency of the State Security Bureau.
12.  On 17 February 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court established, inter alia, that it was impossible to hear the SB officer who had allegedly recruited the applicant as he had died. The court again informed the applicant that, due to the confidential nature of the case, the written reasoning for the judgment would not be served on him but could be consulted in the secret registry.
13.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
14.  On 10 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case to the second-instance court. The Supreme Court found that the applicant's request to call two additional witnesses had been disregarded, which constituted a serious procedural shortcoming.
15.  On 11 December 2000 the Commissioner of the Public Interest applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal to request the Head of the State Security Bureau to lift the confidentiality restrictions in respect of the documents in the case file.
16.  On 20 December 2000 the Head of the State Security Bureau lifted the confidentiality restrictions in respect of the applicant's personal record (teczka osobowa) that had been included in the case file.
17.  On 19 January 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal held a hearing at which it examined the witnesses called by the applicant.
18.  On 25 January 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
19.  Subsequently, the court requested the State Security Bureau to submit additional documents to it. On 28 March 2001 the Bureau transmitted to the court personal information concerning some officers of the security services. On 30 May 2001 the court received from the State Security Bureau additional documents concerning the applicant, namely excerpts from the files of the former Civil Militia (Milicja Obywatelska).
20.  On 1 June 2001 the court held a public hearing at which it heard the applicant. A subsequent hearing on 28 June 2001 was only partly public as the court decided to examine witnesses in camera on the ground that they would testify on matters involving State secrets. The court further ordered the preparation of an expert opinion by the Institute of Criminology of Warsaw University.
21.  On 8 October 2001, on the Commissioner's request, the State Security Bureau submitted to the court more documents from the file of another secret collaborator, “R”, but which related to the applicant.
22.  On 4 December 2001 another hearing was held, in camera. On the same day the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment, finding that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration.
23.  The applicant appealed, reiterating inter alia, that as a member of the national sports team, he had automatically been employed at the Civil Militia, a fact which should have been taken into consideration by the trial court.
24.  On 2 October 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
25.  On 16 May 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.
26.  According to the domestic law in force at the material time, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 February 2000 was considered final. Therefore, on that date the applicant lost his mandate as a Member of Parliament. The applicant is prevented from being a candidate in elections and from holding other public functions for a period of 10 years.